Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:13709 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2612 of 2025 Petitioner :- Lav Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Vocational Edu. And Skill Deve. Deptt. Lko And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Kumar Srivastava,Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Ramesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondents. 2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Instructor in Government Industrial Training Institute, Sitapur and after his promotion he was working on the post of Foreman Instructor (Karyadehak) in Government Industrial Training Institute, Aliganj, Lucknow. The petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 30.12.2024 but he had made a claim for extension of his services for granting him the benefit of session and claims extension of services till the end of session in light of the Government Order dated 29.08.2013. 3. It has been submitted that the benefit of extended session has been extended even to the Foreman Instructor but the respondents have acted in a most illegal and arbitrary manner by denying the benefit of extended session of services to the petitioner. 4. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has submitted that the session benefit is granted only to the persons who are involved in regular teaching which fact would be evident from the Government Order dated 29.08.2013 where any subject approved by the National Council of Vocational Training, Government of India is being taught by a person then the session benefit would be given to him. In the present case, though the petitioner is working on the post of Foreman Instructor but he is not involved in teaching. This fact is evident from the report which was submitted with regard to the petitioner on 17.12.2024 just prior to his superannuation from which it is clear that the petitioner is involved only in supervisory work and only on this ground he is not involved in teaching the said benefit would not be granted to him. 5. It has further been noticed that the session benefit and extension of services of the teachers is given requiring them to continue in service till the end of the session so that the students do not suffer on account of retirement of any teacher in mid- session. This session extension has been provided for the benefit of students and it is not a nature of extension of service of any teacher. It is for this reason that the condition has been imposed that session benefit will be granted to the persons who are involved in teaching assignment. 6. From the fact which remain un-controverted that the petitioner was not involved in any teaching assignment but was working in the supervisory capacity and he was denied session benefit due to the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find any infirmity in the decision of the respondents denying session benefit to the petitioner. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is bereft of merits and is hereby dismissed. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 6.3.2025 Ravi/ Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench